Wednesday, March 19, 2008

To learn all that a horse could teach, was a world of knowledge, but only a beginning. .. .Look into a horse's eye and you instantly know if you can trust him."~Mary O'HaraI am still taking a break from the women series because finals are approaching fast, and I just can't seem to find the time to put together worthy studies on the upcoming crucial scriptures. So, I thought I'd share a little bit about the Ladies' Retreat I went on last weekend.

The theme of the retreat was horses. We stayed at a farm and learned spiritual lessens via horses. The wonderful ladies that work at the farm lead some truly creative activities and challenges to teach us about ourselves, how we view God, and how we view each other. We were split into groups with the objective of leading a horse through an obstacle course without touching the horse. The obstacles were created by 4 small groups, each one representing various problems that keep Christians from maturing spiritually. Afterwards, as one large group, we participated in a "group therapy" type session to discuss what we learned.

The first night, we watched two short videos of horse trainers to parallel our relationship to God. The first trainer used a bit and bridle and spurs to coerce the horse to do the rider's will. But the second trainer built such a remarkable relationship of trust with the horse, that she did not need to use any methods of coercion. The horse WANTS to submit to her. I do not know a lot about horses, but even I could see that what this rider accomplished with her horse was amazing. So, if you do know about horses, I suspect you will find this video meaningful. This girl rides BAREBACK and the horse still obeys. It's simply beautiful.

"There is no secret so close as that between a rider and his horse."~Robert Smith Surtees

That video really spoke to my heart.

But the most revealing activity was when a vast array of wooden tools were laid out in the middle of our circle. We were asked to pick the tool(s) that represents who we are or what we do in the body of Christ. There were hammers, screw drivers, nails, spackle knives, measuring tape, glue guns, nuts and bolts, saws, wrenches, pliers, electrical outlets, drills, and so forth. I immediately grabbed: I chose these tools because I am an inherent "cut and paste-er." In order to become passionate or convinced about a belief or idea, I have to dissect it, analyze, question it, and approach it from every feasible angle. I don't do well with spoon-feeding or assumed beliefs. After I cut it all up, I can paste back together the valuable jewels of truth. Scissors and a glue gun are the symbolic tools for the identities I take on or aspire to: a questioner, a seeker, a reconciler, an eclectic wanderer, carrying the flag of diverse unity. I love to sift through the unlikely places, the unusual places, and even the undesirable places and finding God there. I can cut out the wisdom and truth found in these places that point me to Jesus and paste them altogether to create a unique, multidimensional faith.

"The church is a place for answers, not for questions."--Bree Van De Camp, Desperate Housewives.

Yes, it's true. I learned something insightful from the usually shallow-and-smutty-Desperate Housewives. My ears perked up when I heard one of the main characters declare to her family that they should go to church.

Lynette Scavo; mother of five, a surviving cancer victim, AND a surviving tornado victim; watches her neighbors leave for church on a Sunday morning, and realizes that she has a lot to be thankful for, as well as a lot of unanswered questions. This unbelieving, unchurched woman for the first time in her life wants to go to church. Lynette did not grow up in a religious family and has never attended a church. When she tells her family she wants to go to church, the husband says, "Why? What did we do?" She admits she knows nothing about God or Jesus and feels she needs to find out. Her son confidently declares that he knows plenty about Jesus. "Jesus is the guy who helps Santa at Christmas." Realizing their children's ignorance, they decide to head straight to church.

Lynette seeks out her best friend, Bree Vandecamp, the most "religious" person she knows, and asks if she and her family can tag along to her church. As Lynette walks away, she asks, "So, what are we now?" Bree answers, "Presbyterian!" and Lynette's eyes sort of glaze over, obviously puzzled because she is unfamiliar with the plethora of denominations out there.

The next scene shows Lynette and her family sitting in the pews, listening to the preacher finish his sermon on God's unfailing love. Just as he finishes speaking and is about to lead a hymn, Lynette shoots her hand in the air, eager to ask some pertinent questions about the sermon she just heard. Bree, mortified, frantically whispers, "We don't do that here!" Lynette persists, and the preacher uncomfortably calls on her. She stands up and says she's enjoyed the sermon, but did not understand how God's love could be unfailing when there are so many wars, school shootings, and natural disasters. The congregation looks uncomfortable. People look down at the floor. Men adjust their ties. Eyebrows descend toward squinting eyes. The pastor graciously responds about free will and living in fallen world. Just as the congregation breathes a sigh of relief, Lynette shoots her hand up with another question. The preacher invites her to the midweek bible study; a better place to discuss such deep theological questions.

Lynette, thrilled, accepts and rushes out to buy a bible. Lynette tells Bree that she's breaking in her bible and can't wait to ask all the questions brewing inside of her. Bree gently informs Lynette that "church isn't a place for questions, it's a place for answers." She then explains that church and bible study are a time to listen and eventually, if you have any questions, they will be answered by listening. A discouraged and hurt Lynette decides to give the Catholic church down the street a try instead, describing herself as a "free agent," and the church that will allow some Q & A can have her.

Meanwhile Bree is competing for a prestigious position as committee leader and thinks Lynette's improper behavior may have cost her the spot. But when Bree realizes her pastor was refreshed by Lynette's honest questions, she sets out to get Lynette back. But a still hurting Lynette lashes out at Bree, confessing she used to admire Bree's faith. That she thought Bree had a "real relationship with God," and that's how Bree got through the difficult times. But when she got cancer and her family was nearly killed in a tornado, she was puzzled that Bree never shared her faith. It was as if Bree kept the secret that gave her strength all to herself.

Lynette says, "I have survived cancer and a tornado and I don't understand why I survived and so many others didn't." She needs to understand how God fits into all of this.

In the end Bree apologizes. Bree says, "Faith shouldn't be blind. You don't threaten it by asking questions, you make it stronger." The episode ends with them on the porch reading the Bible together.

Throughout the episode, I kept thinking about the growing number of the population that is completely "unchurched." How many people do not know anything about God or Jesus, let alone how church is done. I wonder how the few curious seekers that do wander into churches see our services? Do they feel the way Lynette felt? Do even Christians sometimes feel the way Lynette felt? Like they are trouble-makers or lacking in faith if they ask the hard questions plaguing their hearts and minds? If they don't just sit back and hope one day their answers will come?

Are our churches a place for questions? I realize that in larger churches, it would be quite impractical to have the congregation asking their questions during those meetings. But I think the nature of Lynette's questions is what really made everyone uncomfortable. I've been part of several bible studies where similar questions were posed and the mood immediately changed. The tension was thick and people scrambled to dismiss the questions with simple pat answers and cliches before changing the subject. Slap a scripture on it and move on!

It seemed perfectly natural to Lynette (a representative of the unchurched segment of America) to voice her concerns and ask her questions once the preacher was done speaking. But when such questions are asked, does the church come off fearful or bothered by questions that have no easy answers? Do we make a place for such questions to be asked, whether from new comers or longtime members of the body? If our faith is real and our God is Truth, are there really any uncomfortable questions that can change that?

This episode of Desperate Housewives portrayed a valuable lessen, at least for me. It put me in the shoes of a person seeking God with no knowledge of the institutional church and how confusing it must all be for them.

BTW, I should return soon with more on the women series. These in depth posts on scriptures are wearing me out, because they involve so much and real life keeps getting in the way. So I thought I'd interrupt with a less studious post. But the women series will continue to march on.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

The Quotation Reading

The words found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are so problematic that many doubt their authorship even belongs to the Apostle Paul. The external and internal problems of these verses have even led some to believe that these verses were added MUCH later by a scribe, since if these seemingly contradicting verses are removed, the text reads much more smoothly. Here are the issues: these verses seem to contradict, not only the rest of the bible, but Paul himself, in multiple places, and in the very same letter (1 Corinthians 11:5, 12:4-11)! The style employed in these verses is utterly foreign to Paul's writing style . The appeal to the "Law" to justify silencing women frankly does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament. No where in the Old Testament does any law or command require that women "subject themselves" by being "silent" in an assembly or while in public.

"The problem simply put is this: nowhere in the whole Old Testament does it teach or even imply what is claimed here. Now law in the entire old testament, much less the Torah, can be cited to teach that a women 'must be in submission' and 'remain silent' and if she wants to know or ask about anything, she 'should ask [her own] husband at home.' Women spoke freely in both testaments."

When Paul actually does cite the Law or scripture to support his points, he immediately follows it by quoting the law he is referring to, as he does in 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, 14:21, 1:19, 1:31, 2:9, 3:19, 10:7, 15:45. For more in depth analysis of Paul's consistent writing style and the "mystery law," see the very thorough article by Dennis J. Preato at God's Word To Women.

A growing number of scholars insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is not the words of Paul at all, but that Paul is quoting the letter written to him from the church at Corinth and then promptly rebuking this degrading, legalistic notion in verses 36-38. Besides the fact that these verses contradict everything Paul has instructed the Corinthians up until this point AND there is NO SUCH LAW in the Torah or the entire Old Testament that requires women to be silent, there are other clues in the original manuscripts that support the quotation reading.

We must remember that ancient Greek did not have punctuation marks, so there is no such symbol that we can equate with how our quotation marks surround a quoted sentence. However, in many of the earliest manuscripts, there appears this greek symbol: η with a grave accent at the beginning of verse 36 to signal to the reader that the above statement is quoted.

Paul already informs the reader that he begins addressing "the things you wrote" back in chapter 7, verse 1. After Paul gives very thorough instructions on how to maintain order during worship gatherings, this bizarre verse appears and contradicts everything he has just instructed, followed by a peculiar, sharp rebuke in verses 36-38.

But if one reads verses 34-35 as a quote from the Corinthians and verses 36-38 as Paul's response, suddenly the meaning becomes crystal clear and totally conducive to the rest of Paul's letter: all members of the body participating in worship assemblies in peace and order. So Paul repeats this appeal from Corinth for the purpose of rebuking it, not to command a universal ruling that silences women in church.

It's imperative to note that while there IS NO law in the OT that silences women, rabbinical "law" strictly forbade women to vocally participate in religious assemblies. Women were seen as obscene, deceitful, immoral, untrustworthy seductresses, whose only purpose was to make babies and serve men. Paul NEVER appeals to rabbinical law to establish universal mandates. Jesus spent most of his ministry openly defying and challenging such legalistic "laws" and "traditions" of the rabbinical Judaism. The early church experienced its fair share of Judaizers (Jews who converted to Christianity, but still believed it necessary to observe the purity codes and rabbinical laws/traditions). Judaizers insisted that converted Gentiles be circumcised, abandon eating idol-offered meat, observe Jewish Sabbaths, etc. Paul refutes all of these assertions made by Judaizers clinging to rabbinical tradition. Such is the case here; Paul quotes Judaizers in Corinth to reveal the hypocrisy in such a statement and then flatly contradicts it, even mocks it. Ironically, these verses used to silence women are actually part of Paul's defense of a woman's right to participate as full member of the body.

These verses are best understood as a slogan or rabbinic saying based on the Jewish "oral law," not the written word of God. Therefore, these verses cannot be used to prohibit women from pulpit ministry within the church.

Below is the entire passage from verses 26-40. Remember that the the word brethren (Greek word: adelphoi) is gender plural or gender inclusive, including both men and women. Read verses 34-35 as a quoted statement. This blew my mind the first time I did this.

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.THE WOMEN ARE TO KEEP SILENT IN THE CHURCHES; FOR THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK, BUT ARE TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES, JUST AS THE LAW ALSO SAYS. IF THEY DESIRE TO LEARN ANYTHING, LET THEM ASK THEIR OWN HUSBANDS AT HOME; FOR IT IS IMPROPER FOR A WOMAN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH.

Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

The phrase "Did the word of God come to you only.." is believed to be a reference to Jesus' first appearance to the women at the tomb, the first entrusted with the good news of His resurrection and the first commissioned to tell the male apostles about it! Basically, Paul's point is that the word of God has come to all believers, so how dare they deprive the church body by silencing half its members.J. Lee Grady points out:

"This strange response makes no sense if we believe that Paul penned verses 34 and 35. But if he is contradicting the statements made by the Judiazers at Corinth, then we can understand the definat tone of verse 36."

Deciphering quotations seems to be a tricky task for bible translators. For instance, 1 Corinthians 6:12, 6:13 and 10:23 are marked as quotations in the NCV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV; but they are not shown with quotation marks in the ASV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV. These kind of discrepancies occur because of the lack of punctuation signals available in ancient Greek.

However, all the available evidence seems to point to these verses and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being quotations that Paul is rebuking.

Theologian Kenneth S. Kantzer wrote:

"In 1 Corinthians 14, we are caught in an intricate interplay between quotations from a missing letter form the Corinthians and Paul's solutions to the problems the letter had raised. The verse is clearly not repeating a law of Scripture and cannot be taken as a universal command for women to be silent in church. That interpretation would flatly contradict what the apostle had just said three chapters earlier."

I believe this reading is the strongest and most logical choice for interpreting 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. I apologize for the lengthiness of this post, but it's difficult to present the sound-bite version of a biblical interpretation most people are unfamiliar with and do it justice! When there are only 2 obscure and highly controversial verses in the entire new testament that seem to bar women from ministry and church participation, we must dig into the scriptures and examine all available evidence to clarify their true meanings.

"For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."--Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:33-36.

1. Paul is addressing all of the women (in that church or in every church) and forbidding them from interrupting the service with unnecesarry questions, rude chatter, or airing private family matters to shame their husbands, not from vocally participating in an orderly fashion.

2. Paul is addressing UNBELIEVING wives attending christian assemblies with their converted husbands, commanding that they are not to speak during the assembly, until they make a commitment to the faith.

3. Paul is addressing all women everywhere and commanding them to be in silence, no speaking at all during church gatherings.

One of the most important factors to understand when dealing with the original language of the bible, Greek in this instance, is that Greek (Paul is writing in the dialect of koine) has NO SPACES between words and NO PUNCTUATION MARKS. So CONTEXT is relied on very heavily to determine meaning and arrangement.

Most English translations contribute to all the confusion surrounding this passage by dropping the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints," down to the beginning part of verse 34's sentence: "the women are to keep silent..." However, "as in all the churches of the saints" is really the last part of verse 33. So, it should read: "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints," meaning that God wants peace and not confusion in ALL the churches. The New American Standard Version, praised for its very literal translation of the bible, rightly corrects this error that is found in most other translations.

Here are the key words from this passage and the transliterated Greek words they are translated from:

Laleo(to speak) is used in its present infinitive form, therefore some argue it should be translated as "continually speaking up," which would support the idea that Paul is silencing women who interrupt the assembly, forbidding a type of speech, not all women from speaking in the midst of the congregation. Paul is correcting chaos, not forbidding women from speaking in the assembly in an orderly fashion.

Greek only as ONE word, gune, for women/woman and wife/wives, so the context has to determine when the word means which. In this particular instance, wives seems to make more sense, since the solution to answering their questions is having them ask their own husbands. If Paul meant all women, would he not appeal to fathers, brothers, and husbands to solve the problem of women's questions? Nonetheless the word CAN mean either. So there is no definite proof either way whether Paul is addressing unbelieving wives, or women in general.

The Greek word "hai" translated in these verses as "the" can also be translated as "those." The very same word is translated as "those" in Matthew 8:33, 9:12, 12:3 (NKJ).

Likewise, the Greek word "en" translated in these verses as "in" can also be translated as "among." The very same word is translated as among in Matthew 2:6, 4:23, 16:8, and 20:26.

While ekklesia is the word that means church, it literally means "the called out ones" or "true believers," more aptly the gathering of called out ones/true believers, both men and women. It does not refer to a building. It should be noted that when a person came to faith in the early church, they were immediately baptized to be recognized as members of the ekklesia. So could these to-be-silent women not have made a public commitment of faith yet, thus were not yet permitted to participate in the gatherings as part of the body and instead only learn in silence until they became members? It's something to consider.

Taking alternate meanings of the key words into consideration, verses 33-35 could read:

For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the congregations of the saints. Those women(or wives)are to keep silent among the called out ones(or true believers); for they are not permitted to speak (continually speak up), but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is disgraceful for a(the)woman (or wife)to speak(continually speak up)among the called out ones(or true believers: both men and women).

Some argue that the last line is addressing one unbelieving woman in particular that keeps disrupting the ekklesia. It is argued that the church at Corinth wrote Paul about the situation of a pagan woman continually interrupting with false prophecies and incoherent, babbling utterances, as was custom among the surrounding pagan cults. Since the subject of "someone" saying "Jesus be cursed" is mentioned earlier in the letter (1 Corinthians 12:3), it is not that far fetched to conclude that their were indeed unbelievers attending the church at Corinth, and if they were unbelieving wives, it can be easily seen why Paul would command their silence.

Others argue that these verses are just a matter of manners, telling women (who have never before been able to learn the things of God) to be attentive to those speaking, and not to talk amongst themselves, interrupt with constant questioning, yelling across the room to their husbands to clarify for them what is going on.

The Problems:

The fact remains, that outside of the phrase "as in all the churches of the saints" being dropped down to appear as the first part of verse 34, this really isn't concretely a case of mistranslation, but of key words retaining a variety of meanings. Hardcore complementarians can just as easily argue for the "traditional" reading that exists in most modern versions and not technically be wrong. They may have to backpedal and qualify a lot of other verses to avoid contradictions, but the original words themselves, could render either reading.

Even if one subscribes to the alternate readings, it does not account for Paul's uncharacteristic reference to the mystery "Law," (further explanation in next post). And if Paul is telling women/wives that it is disgraceful to "interrupt" the service with their speech as opposed to all women publicly speaking, then why is this limited only to women? Isn't in disgraceful for men to interrupt services as well? Also this alternate reading does little to explain the sharp, puzzling statements that follow in verses 36-38. We haven't touched on these verses yet, but will explore them in the next post.

If one fuses the original language options with the cultural and historical factors, it makes a strong case for this verse NOT being an all-time, universal command to silence all women from publicly speaking during church gatherings. However, I do not believe it to be the strongest option.

So, the next post will explore The Quotation Theory. This is my personal understanding of this bizarre passage.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."--Paul,1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Cultural/Historical Reading

For all my talk about the importance of understanding the cultural and historical context of a passage, I actually find this interpretation to be the weakest. I do think these cultural aspects enhance the reasoning and relevance for such a verse, but it's not enough to discredit the notion that women should remain silent and that it is "shameful" for a woman to speak in church.

First, the context of 1 Corinthians as a whole is a letter written by Paul to the church at Corinth, which was in real trouble. They were unruly, disorderly, chaotic, and angrily disputing with one another. Some were even pitting teachers against each other. Paul calls them "worldly" and still "infants" in the faith (1 Corinthians 3:1-4). The letter is answering specific problems within that church. The first half deals with situations relayed to Paul through members of Chloe's household (1 Corinthians 1:11) and the second half deals with specific issues the church at Corinth inquired about in a letter to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1). Since we only have Paul's answers and not the letter from Corinth, we can only "read between the lines" as to what those questions were. Biblical scholars like to say that the letters of Paul are akin to listening to one side of a telephone conversation. I think that is an apt description.

Most early churches met in homes, and many still segregated the men and women. This was a LONG standing tradition in Judaism, and since Christianity was seen as Judaism's offspring, that tradition (along with others) crept into the early church. Nonetheless, women had never before been so included during religious meetings. The Holy Spirit fell on all believers at Pentecost and all believers were expected to contribute to church meetings for the common good and building up of the church (1 Corinthians 14:26). Some would prophesy, some would pray, some would sing, some would give a teaching, some would give instruction or a word of knowledge, some would edify the body, and so forth. Gifts are distributed according to the Holy Spirit and not according to gender and if one had a gift, one was expected to use it in the midst of the entire body (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

We must remember that women previously under Judaism and previously under pagan religions were rarely afforded this kind of participation in religious services, so most were uneducated. Pagan religions featured temple prostitutes and female prophets that uttered unintelligible babbling, but this was not the kind of participation expected in the christian church. So believing women in the church, though filled with the Spirit, did not have the same training under The Law as most of the men did. Based on some other early writings of this time, many scholars believe that the women let this new found liberty go to their heads and got out of hand by interrupting the meetings with unnecessary questions, talking over others, all prophesying at once, and so forth. And since women were still seated away from the men, it is supposed that they were yelling across the room to ask their husbands about what was happening or being said. So the "silence" command was not so much about gender, but keeping order.

Others believe wives were airing their dirty laundry during services, revealing all their personal problems with their husbands. It does seem strange that the first part of the verse is translated as "women" remaining silent and then the latter solution is that they should ask their own husbands. What about women who were unmarried? So this inappropriate "sharing" could be the case.

And yet others believe that Paul is addressing UNBELIEVING women who attend meetings with their believing husbands, who obviously would not be permitted to participate in a vocal manner until they became believers.

Although Corinth was a city IN the Roman Empire, it was Greek by culture. In Greek culture, woman had it even worse than in Jewish culture. The only women seen and heard in public were the cultured prostitutes, called hetaira. There were also pagan prophetess, administering sexual temple rituals and preaching pagan religions. But women by and large were considered inferior on every level: mental, physical, and spiritual.

Dianne McDonnell, from Church of God in Texas, points out:

The "keep silent" admonition was written to a church at Corinth that was a short forty mile boat ride away from the world famous Oracle at Delphi. At this temple women priestesses uttered babble which was interpreted and presented as messages from a pagan god. In 1 Cor, Chapter 12, Paul introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" and then he reminds church members they were once running after dumb idols themselves.

Some believe Paul was being sensitive to the culture surrounding the Corinthian Church. Since Christianity was still an "infant" religion, unestablished and unknown to the culture at large, then if women were publicly speaking, they could easily be mistaken for the hetaira and Christianity would be seen as just another sect that offered temple prostitution to commune with the gods.

While all of the scenarios briefly covered above are plausible, they are highly speculative. I think the original language study and quotation reading offer a much clearer and precise understanding of this verse. Even though I find these insights into the culture beneficial and revealing, I do not think it is enough to clarify the meaning of the passage in question. The passage is phrased too broadly and universally to be based solely on culture. Calling it shameful for women to speak in church and appealing to The LAW is strong language that cannot be dismissed based solely on the situation and culture of the Corinthian Church.

Even if Paul is only telling Corinthian church women to be silent because of some cultural factors, it still flatly contradicts what he has written just a few verses AND a few chapters earlier.

So, unless one believes Paul would contradict himself right in the same letter, telling all believers to pray and prophesy in the church and encouraging all to use their gifts in front of the entire church, we have to conclude that there is more to this verse than meets the eye.

Christians who pride themselves on being "biblical literalists," taking the bible for what it says at face value, seem to ignore or give little credence to the very literal translation errors that have crept into English/Western versions of the bible that differ from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Many of these mistranslations conveniently pertain to gender language, in effect building the case for women to be restricted in ministry.

At least with hardcore-complementarians, the reasoning remains the same throughout their biblical interpretation process: the bible, as we know it in English, had divine direction and therefore, can be read at face value without worry.

But moderate-complementarians run into a bit of a problem. By moderate-complementarians, I mean Christians who believe only men should lead the church, teach the assembly, and lead in their homes, BUT believe women may participate in the services, as long as they are not perceived has "having authority." So, a woman may get up and read a scripture, but she may not teach on it. A woman may get up and sing a song, possibly even lead a song. Women may pray aloud in the presence of men and even share testimonies. While I appreciate this more "liberal" approach, the issue of consistent biblical interpretation becomes problematic. For instance, a purely "literal reading" of 1 Corinthians 14:34:35 does not allow any of the aforementioned lenience.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."--Paul,1 Corinthians 14:34-35

There are really only two verses in the bible that would appear to outright bar women from public ministry and holding positions of "authority," such as church leaders, church planters, pastors, preachers, evangelists, elders, and deacons: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (if read literally in English, this verse would silence women altogether: no speaking, no vocal praying, no singing.... ) and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Sometimes Ephesians 5 is thrown in for good measure. But even if one takes the view that the husband has all the authority over the wife in the marriage relationship, this hardly places all women under the authority of all men in the church! Nonetheless, it is these verses upon which the complementarian position hangs and the verses through which they interpret the rest of the bible: the creation account, Jesus' ministry, Deborah not being God's best, etc. etc. ( I am speaking here of complementarian scholars, I do not presume to know how each individual complementarian approaches the bible...)

Now, across-the-board complementarians have no problem with reading the above mentioned verses literally, at face value, with no qualification, or contextualization, for that matter. They certainly have no qualms about prohibiting women from teaching/preaching/evangelizing/leading, and women's overall public silence is just an added bonus.

But for the moderate-complementarian, this just doesn't seem right. So, most moderate complementarians have opted for a little more "in-depth" interpretation when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. They argue that this verse does not completely silence women in public church meetings or other mixed gatherings, was never really meant to be applied universally, or was never really meant to silence all women at all times.

Since the text ITSELF does not provide any of these convenient "qualifiers" or hints at a "temporary" instruction, moderate-complementarians refer back to the original language, appeal to the larger context of the verse, and what was happening culturally and historically at the time. Once it becomes clear, based on THOSE factors (not the text itself mind you), that Paul never intended to completely silence women, they feel justified in allowing women to vocally participate in public church meetings, as long as women are not leading or teaching men. Phew! right?

But the methods they use to come to this very logical conclusion about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are THE EXACT same methods they criticize and denounce egalitarians for using when applied to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 or Ephesians 5! They say things like: "You're reading things into the bible," "You're over thinking it," " You're using outside sources to determine meaning," "You're not just taking the text for WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS," "History and culture are irrelevant and unreliable," "If the Bible is inspired, then that inspiration should have carried over with each translation" or Tonya's favorite line, "That's human reasoning!" (hehe). I can accept all of these arguments from hardcore, across-the-board complementarians, because at least they are consistent in their reading of the scriptures: all "command" passages are all literal, all-time binding, and can be taken at face value without qualification. But moderates who adhere to a "deeper" reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, while fancying themselves "biblical literalists," is a bit of a head scratcher. What's the old saying? Oh yes: Moderate-complementarians who live by glass hermeneutics should not throw stones. OK, now I'm just being snarky. I deserve whatever wrath is forth coming. :)

So, I would like to remind my moderate-complementarianish friends that if they believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means anything other than completely silencing women in church gatherings, they have arrived at this interpretation through similar methods that egalitarians employ to arrive at alternate interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and Ephesians 5.

Now, on to business. :)

Before delving into whether or not it is allowable for a woman to teach/preach/lead in the presence of men, we must establish whether or not a woman is biblically permitted even to speak at all during church gatherings. So, the next three posts will be devoted to exploring 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the verses around it. I'm curious to how my moderate complementarianish friends interpret this verse, since I know they believe women can speak in church, yet are at the same time, all about taking scripture for what it says, without making outside inferences or consulting outside help to understand a passage's meaning.

There are MANY different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and biblical scholars rank this verse within the top three hardest passages in scripture to interpret. Not because the meaning is unfavorable, but because nearly two-thirds of the surviving Greek manuscripts place these verses in entirely different places! Also, the language, syntax, and style seem to be uncharacteristic, inconsistent, and contradictory with Paul's other writings. The next three posts will present the following interpretations of this difficult passage:

1. The Cultural/Historical Reading

2. The Original Language Reading

3. The Quotation Theory

I personally find the third interpretation to be the most plausible. But we'll see what you guys think. I'm breaking this up into three posts so I can thoroughly explain each position and avoid overlapping confusion between them. Letters of Paul, here we go!

"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray,"--Jesus, Matthew 18:12-13

I have to interrupt the women series to post about this while it is fresh in my mind. Since yesterday morning, all I have done is cry my eyes out, pray, agonize and drive around looking for my runaway dog. I periodically checked in on blog world to get my mind off of it.

This is me and Aravis, at a much skinnier time in both our lives. :)

It all started yesterday morning. I awoke to find one of our outside dogs, Aravis, missing from the yard. She dug her way out of the fence. I went out front and saw her hobbling down the road back towards our house. She had a huge gash on her left front paw and could barely walk on it. I immediately called the vet, which is about 4 or 5 miles away, to set up a time to bring her in.

When we got there, I lifted her out of the car and as I carried her up to the vet's office, she panicked, flipped out of arms, and took off with her leash still attached! She ran directly into oncoming traffic. A truck almost hit her, but swerved at the last second. She ran across the street, through a parking lot, down a long, STEEP, ravine and disappeared into the field of high grass. Only more busy roads surrounded the field. She was gone.

Those of you who know me already know at this point that I was devastated. We have ten dogs (two inside dogs and eight outside dogs) and we love them like people. My husband and I often say that dogs are God's best creation. I drove around in circles for hours calling her name, crying, hitting my steering wheel, and dropping a few expletives. I did not spot her once. I went home defeated, convinced I'd never find her again alive. My worst fear was finding her hit on the side of the road.

I woke up this morning to VIOLENT thunder and lightening. All I could think about was my poor, scared, wounded dog trying to fend for herself out there with no way to come home. As soon as the storm let up, I started driving around again. My voice was hoarse from calling her name.

As I was driving, I started to get really angry. These kind of things tend to happen to me A LOT, so much so that I've started to expect the worst in these kind of situations. After hours of searching, I was "talking" to God, okay, yelling at God, recounting all the worry, anxiety, desperation, and fervor of the past twenty-four hours, expressing how the thought of giving up or finding her dead was almost unbearable. The prayer was laced with a "it's not fair," attitude. In the middle of my rant, within in the deepest part of me, I felt God say, "Imagine how I've searched for you." Ouch. I nearly drove off the road. I pulled over and just wept over my steering wheel. How many times have I wandered off? I realized that I am a lot like my dog. She really loves us, but is ruled by fear. She's always cowering until she's sure she's not in trouble. She kind of expects the worst. Sound familiar? I started thinking about the mind-blowing notion of God searching for me and still searching for all of me. Just then, I heard a faint yelp. I got out of my car and yelled for Aravis. I did this for a half hour before finally giving up. I got back in my car and started to turn around. Just before driving off, I saw her standing in the middle of a field about a quarter of a mile away. I jumped out of my car and called her to come. She stood there looking at me for a moment. I couldn't believe it! I thanked God over and over again out loud. But then Aravis ran off again and I imeediately switched to dropping the F-bomb in frustration. Thanking God in one breath, dropping the F-bomb in the other....OY.

Anyway, I had to run after her through a FLOODED field. I got mud up to my knees and she was no where in sight... again. I finally heard some rustling in the thicket and she poked her head out. I called her in my nicest voice, since I knew she wanted to come to me, but was also scared (another familiar spiritual problem). It didn't matter. No matter how nice sounding my voice was, she wouldn't come close enough. Finally, I decided to lay prostrate on the ground, in the mud (Dog people know that this is a way to communicate a non-threatening demeanor). So I laid there for a few moments and she cautiously circled around me, and finally collapsed on top of me, digging her head into me, shaking and wimpering.

As I sat there hugging my wet, muddy, wounded, fearful, nutbag of a dog, I realized how happy I was to have found her. I wasn't angry with her, I felt compassion for her. I didn't care that I was covered in mud from head to toe or how filthy she was, I just wanted to take care of her. And I wondered if this is how God feels when we finally surrender and come close enough to Him to be found? I wondered how often God is searching for me and I don't even know it? I wondered how often God is reaching out to me and I'm too wrapped up in my own baggage and fear to realize it? There are parts of myself that still cower and run from God's extended embrace because of fear. But today the reality of how far God goes to find us, how far He was willing to wade through the muck and mire of human filthiness, just came to life. The parable of the lost sheep came alive through my own parable of my lost dog.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody.~Florynce Kennedy

Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself. ~Robert IngersollToday is my deadline for a number of school assignments, as well as edited articles for the newspaper. So, I have had ZERO time to spruce up the more in depth posts. Since the posts coming up (especially the ones on Paul's letters) are the crux of this debate, I want to make sure those posts do the egalitarian argument justice. After today, my schedule loosens up, so I can start cranking them out.

In the meantime, I wanted to share this post from the CBE Scroll on equality and ask for some reader feedback. The end of the article asks for complementarians to elaborate on what they mean by equality, beyond the phrase "equal in worth, different in function."

So, what is your ideal vision of gender equality?

How do you think equality and gender should play out?

Which gender roles, characteristics, careers, and activities are you willing to see as flexible, overlapping, or as grey areas within the home and church?

Which roles, activities, characteristics, and positions do you see as strictly off limits for either sex?

Where and HOW do you draw the line?

Do you think complementarians need to abandon the term "equality" altogether (since they only started using it in the 70s...) and just admit that women are NOT equal, as it pertains to being equipped for ministry, giftings, leadership opportunities, and functions within the church and marriage?

And if complementarians believe that women are not fit for these tasks, then should they just say so, instead of hiding behind a water downed version of equality (equal in worth, but limited in function)? Maybe they can argue that equality is not biblical or that equality is not all its cracked up to be (as I have heard argued before)?

Or do you think the notion of women possessing equal worth, but remaining eternally subordinate can be reconciled with concept of human equality?

How does redemption factor in to your veiw of gender equality? Does Jesus' death on the cross change the way men and women relate to each other? How does it affect the curse?

I know all complementarians (or egalitarians for that matter) do not march in lockstep, so I am curious as to what the consensus is among my readers (both C's and E's) regarding these questions. Let's probe how our abstract beliefs take shape in everyday life and the impliactions those beliefs dictate.

"Deep down, beneath all our insecurities, beneath all our hopes for and beliefs in equality, each of us believes we're better than anyone else. Because it's our beliefs that are right, our doubts that are allowable ones, our fears which are legitimate."--Audrey Beth Stein

Thursday, March 13, 2008

"And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends."-- 1 Kings 16:11

Nothing like a good old fashion sermon on men "who pisseth against the wall." This dude can preach because he is a man, and by his own definition, to be a real man means pissing against the wall. So, that's the difference between men and women! No wonder we can't teach scripture, it's all so clear now! :)

Did you guys know that urinals were divinely sanctioned? Who woulda thunk?

Really, could a woman do much worse than that dude?

Ok, this video is posted for strictly humorous purposes, and because I haven't had a lot of time to work on more "meaty" posts. But I just want to make it clear that I DO NOT believe this bizarro-idea of "man-ness" is the crux of the complementarian argument or represents most complementarians in the least. In fact, I am hoping that this winner is the only one who thinks likes that. :)

But his mindset begs the question: Are our beliefs on "what makes a man a real man" distorted? Are our ideas of ideal masculinity shaped by scripture or by something like old western flicks, where men are gun-slinging, macho cowboys who pee in the wind and never shed a tear? Since the start of this series, the idea of gender roles and how they relate to or define our masculinity/femininity has consistently come up. So, I would like to know:

Which roles do you consider to be solely feminine and and solely masculine?

Which qualities do you consider to be solely female and solely male?

Or do you believe that most qualities are overlapping, but the ratio present within each sex should be distinct?

The reason I ask, is because I could not really pinpoint for myself inherent qualities (outside of the biological realm) that are solely male/female. I am sincerely curious of what the consensus is out there on this topic.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Jesus' encounter with the woman at the well is, in my opinion, one of the most remarkable, socially-unacceptable, counter-cultural instances told in scripture. As if being a woman during this period was not bad enough, to be a Samaritan woman was a double curse. Jews did not associate with Samaritans and would never share a drinking vessel with them, lest they, too, become unclean. Samaritans were considered "half-breeds" and were avoided at all costs.

Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well and asks her to give him a drink. She is stunned, informing him that she is a Samaritan woman and He is a Jew, so how could He ask her for a drink. Jesus then teaches her the lesson of living water, tells her about her five husbands, and finally reveals to her that a time is coming when people will be able to worship God in spirit and truth, only through the power of God's spirit. (That's quite a heavy conversation, one He had not even shared with the 12). When she proclaims that she knows there is a day when a Messiah will come, Jesus says, "I am He." Again, this is more information than even the disciples are aware of at this point. She runs back to town and tells many of the men (plural, so probably men and women) about Jesus, confessing that He knew everything about her.

"From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all the things that I have done" (John 4:39).

Mr. Davidson, from the Church of God, highlights some interesting facts about this famous encounter between Jesus and The Woman at the Well:

“The conversation with the woman at the well is the longest recorded discussion Jesus had with anyone—and she, a Gentile woman. Further, the lesson Jesus gave her about living water was just as profound as the lesson he gave Nicodemus—and the woman had a better response. Unlike Nicodemus, she was willing to be associated with Jesus. She told her neighbors about Jesus, and many of them believed in Jesus 'because of the woman’s testimony.'”

The most fascinating part of this story is that while she ran back to town to tell others to come see the one who could be the long-awaited Messiah, Jesus is praising her work through a parable to his returning dumbfounded-disciples, who are marveling at the fact that Jesus would be talking to a Samaritan woman, apparently alone! Scandalous. This is surely not only a social violation, but a theological violation. Yet, the disciples were too chicken to ask aloud: "why would He be talking to this woman...."

So, Jesus schools them about the unlikely partnerships and co-working in The Great Upside Down Kingdom of God....

"Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. Already he [original translation: "one"]who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together." So in this case the saying is true, 'One sows and another reaps.' "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor."

Jesus, The Ultimate Seed Sower, plants His Word into the woman's heart, who in turn plants His Word in the hearts of others. This must have been a trying and puzzling lesson for the disciples, who previously wouldn't even have made eye contact with a Samaritan, let alone work along side them, partnering up in the cause of God, to invite "half-breeds" to become followers of Jesus.

Isn't the story of the woman at the well a reflection of what evangelism is really about? Churches that forbid or discourage women from preaching the gospel in the presence of men miss the entire point and essence of true evangelism. Preaching the Good News of Jesus should not be a means to gain or exercise authority/control over people. To portray it as such (since that IS the reason sited to bar women from becoming public evangelists), perverts the spirit in which evangelism should be acted out. Evangelism is about pointing people to JESUS. It's about teaching people what the gospel is, what Jesus said and did, and to invite others to began their own faith journey. How sectors of the church can restrict women from preaching the good news of the gospel in the presence of men is just tragic to me. The Samaritan woman's sense of urgency, as she runs back to town to tell anyone who will listen about the Messiah, says it all. Where's that urgency today? Are we too busy squabbling over which gender can say and do what in the presence of which people and in which forums? Titles and positions of preacher, teacher, pastor, evangelist and so forth, should not be viewed as ways to get authority, but as an avenue to live out the authority and calling of the gospel for those gifted and equipped in each area.

Why do we split such flimsy hairs when it comes to women in ministry: woman can preach the gospel, but they cannot BE a preacher. Women can DO evangelism. but cannot BE an evangelist. Women can SHARE the gospel, but cannot TEACH the gospel.

Don't we want to reach as many people as we can? Why do we make teaching the Gospel a matter of "authority over others" and "proper gender roles"? (Again, I am speaking to the more rigid branches of complementarianism).

The Woman at the Well did not hold an "official" position (so don't misunderstand my intent), but as one of the first people EVER for Jesus to choose to reveal Himself as the Messiah and as the first person to spread the news of Jesus beyond the Jewish people, she sets an important example of the true heart of ministry.

I came across this three-minute creative, contemporary, beat-poet-ish video, portraying this story from the Samaritan woman's perspective. I found it compelling.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Most Christians admit that Jesus welcomed both men and women as his disciples. However, many do not realize what a radical move this was in Jesus' day. Disciples are not mere students, who just acquire knowledge for the sake of private learning, but are more like apprentices, in that disciples are expected to learn "the skills" of the teacher/rabbi and then when the time comes, they are to go and do the same. To have women disciples was a purposefully revolutionary and liberating signal, especially since during this time, women were not considered worthy enough to learn anything of importance, let alone the things of God.

Women were not to be taught anything of a spiritual nature. They were forbidden from learning the Law, could not enter certain parts of the temple, and were separated from the men during synagogue to talk amongst themselves. They were not suppose to speak to men in public. Even husbands were looked down upon for addressing their wives in public. Jewish law forbade women to testify in court because their testimony was considered "untrustworthy."

The popular Rabbi Eliezer, who lived in first century Palestine, wrote: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman...Whoever teaches his daughter [the Torah] is like one who teaches her obscenity." Another notorious 1st century Rabbi, Jesus Ben Sirach, wrote "He who acquires a wife gets his best position." This attitude saturated Jewish law, tradition, and custom (and unfortunately, most the church for centuries) because of the belief that Eve was to blame for the fall, thus all women were inferior, hopelessly immoral, and deceitful. The whole "equal, but different" theology did not come about until the 1970s!

Here are some other "pearls of wisdom" from other leading Jewish rabbis on the subject of women from around the time of Jesus:

“Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity…. From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die”(Sirach 25:19, 24;).

“Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace”(Sirach 42:14).

“The woman is inferior to the man in every way”(Josephus, Against Apion 2:201).

“A hundred women are no better than two men”(Talmud, Ber. 45b)

“A man is required to say the following three blessings every day: ‘Blessed are you who have not made me a heathen, who have not made me a woman, who has not made me illiterate”(bMen. 43b; Ber. 7.18).

“There is no wisdom in woman except with the spindle”(bYom. 66b).

So, it is within this hostile context that Jesus embraces women as his disciples, not just to learn, but to learn along side men and to eventually preach and teach others. DURING, the famous Sermon on The Mount, while explaining the "upside-down" kingdom of God, He tells the crowd (made up of both men and women) that whoever keeps His Commands and teaches them to others will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."--Jesus, Matt. 5:19

Notice Jesus does not make the distinction between men teaching anyone and everyone and women only teaching other women and children. Men and women are given the same standard, the same privilege, and the same responsibility. Jesus entrusts His words to masses, encouraging that they be kept and taught to others. Again, because of the modern world we live in, we miss the radical elements of Jesus' loaded words. To tell a crowd of men and women (many with reputation issues) to teach anything, let alone spiritual things, is unheard of in 1 Century Judea, a taboo and despicable offense to the "religious leaders" of the day. The Law was solely entrusted to the religious leaders, who then filtered down what they wished to the people.

Jesus also gives the Great Commission to the Eleven, who are to make disciples, equipping all people and nations to do the same.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."--Jesus, Matt. 28:18-20

Again, to make "disciples" of all nations, with no distinction of male and female, implies that the new disciples will also be expected to pass the torch: teaching, preaching, baptizing, and training new disciples to do the same. All believers are called to the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).

In the next few posts, we will examine Jesus' interaction with the Samaritan Woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, and some others. Then at long last, we will delve into Paul's letters, which are primarily sited to bar women from all levels of ministry.

There are three short, obscure stories within the Old Testament that give me hope for women being empowered to reclaim their full spiritual inheritance in The Kingdom of God. So certain people don't have an aneurysm, I am not claiming that this hope is the definitive meaning of these scriptures or that they necessarily "prove" anything. They are just tiny glimmers of comfort that God has used in my own journey because I personally struggle with much of the old testament.

Some of these instances don't seem like a big deal to those of us who live in our modern part of the world, where women possess far more rights and "worth," than they ever had in ancient Israel. These stories made it into scripture and I believe they exist for a reason: to foreshadow a time when women, too, would be redeemed from the curse and be able to reclaim an equal inheritance with their brothers in their Father's kingdom.

Zelophehad's five daughters; Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirza; who defied Israel's longstanding male-dominated tradition and approached Moses to grant them the full portion of their father's inheritance. Their father had no son and since women were considered unworthy to own anything, the inheritance would be distributed to far-off relatives while his daughters were left destitute. This was an ugly reality for families with no male heir. So, they waltzed up to Moses and said,"Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives." (Numbers 27:4).

This is a remarkable and revolutionary act for women in ancient Israel to risk. They are not only asking for the inheritance that a son would get, but are questioning the logic of Israel's law! Talk about assertive eh? Laws in theocratic Israel were different from the law of secular countries, they were equated with God's truth. So this is an incredibly ballsy move! Moses actually took these bold women seriously and inquired of the Lord about what to do.

"So Moses brought their case before the LORD and the LORD said to him, 'What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them. Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. '"

J. Lee Grady expounds on this passage:

"In that moment, God contradicted centuries of prejudice and wrong-headed tradition. He made it clear that in His kingdom, women are not afterthoughts or domestic appendages...When God looks at redeemed mankind through the blood of Jesus Christ, He does not limit women from full participation in His kingdom."

So, God gives Zelophehad's daughters their inheritance, demonstrating His tender concerns for their well being and their due as human beings. God commands that Israel's legal code be changed as a result of Zelophehad's daughters, legislating that daughters were to receive the full inheritance, if the father had no sons. Not exactly what we would consider today to be full equality, but for a time when women weren't considered worthy to own anything, this was a miraculously liberating development. Their courage benefited many other women, who would have been "disowned" and left with nothing. If Moses is a picture of Christ, then him bringing these women's case before the Lord becomes all the more meaningful.

In Joshua 15:18-19, we meet Achsah, the daughter of Caleb. When Caleb acquires a lush portion of land in Judah, his daughter asks him for part of land. Again, in a time when women were traditionally not permitted to own anything, let alone property, this is shockingly bold. Caleb gives her the land of Negev. Achsah then asks for more: "Give me a blessing since you have given me the land of Negev, give me also springs of water." So Caleb gives her the "upper and lower springs." His daughter receives a triple portion, above and beyond what she asks for. She receives her own land, and two sets of springs. Having access to fresh water was considered a great luxury in ancient times. The story of Caleb and Achsah paints a beautiful picture of a father's love for his daughter, a love that empowers her.

The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job's daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

Job, considered to be one of the most righteous men of all time, thought it best to bestow his inheritance upon both his sons and daughters, which was virtually unheard of in ancient times. If Job is a picture of Christ, the fact that he chose to empower all of his children with the same opportunities and resources, with a full inheritance, is significant, at least to me.

All these stories reveal the subtle theme of a father's love for his children and how that love takes shape. Jesus came to redeem us, to restore humanity to this beautiful parent/child relationship, to live out a full inheritance in His Kingdom. Let's empower all of God's children to rise up and take it, and let the Spirit determine how this inheritance takes shape, not our reproductive organs.

My Safe Place To Unmask

About Me

Mission Statement

This blog exists to present diverse viewpoints concerning a range of topics from biblical concepts and interpretations to pressing current events that receive little OPEN discussion in many Christian circles. Such topics tend to get oversimplified, polarized into extremes, or made into "black and white" issues by the POPULAR opposing sides. I love Jesus and ALL His people, especially those who do not know Him yet. I am independent politically and refuse to align with either Democrats or Republicans. I aim to question some of the prevailing notions that fly about accepted and untested in Christendom. My intent is not to offend or cause division among believers, but to search out the freedom that deepens believers to become a Body that is diverse, yet unified, truthful, yet encompassing, justice-seeking, yet compassionate, and well-informed.

To care for the poor is to know God (Jeremiah 22:16)

God is with the vulnerable and the poor. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the cries heard under the rubble or war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunities and lives. And God is with us, if we are with them.